Murdock, Mark (Mark.Murdock@Unisys.Com)
Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:57:01 +0100
> I am still of the opinion that the concept of
> Dynamic Quality will only alter the ethical drift of humanity for the
> good
> when the
> Good gains the numerical upper hand since Dynamic Quality operates for
> everyone and is only a force for good when the previous platform of
> Static
> Quality of the individual encourages that selection of consciousness
> which
> tends toward the Good. (If that makes sense).
>
You make excellent sense. And how does that individual select something
which is essentially outside of our current mythos? By becoming aware
of the distinction between the Good and the True. We pledge faith to
the Church of Reason today -- things of value do not exist, they're
"whatever you like." In order for us to see Good, we need to step
outside this mythos into the realm of insanity (like Pirsig). That's
why a community of folks stepping outside the mythos is far easier to
handle than individuals without support.
Environmental activism is working and working well in many cases because
of people who intuitively know it's right. But many more are literally
taught to ignore those feelings over truths. Others rationalize these
feelings as idealistic and impractical. But that numerical upper hand
is happening, Ken. I feel it.
> I am not sure whether you believe in an immortal soul or not. You
> didn't
> make that clear. I prefer not to believe that because not only is it a
> crushing burden for us to bear but it opens the door for too much
> contention and strife.
>
I'd like to hear your ideas on why this notion is a crushing burden? I
do believe in a soul which transcends our physical self. I see this
reality as liberating and empowering rather than a burden. Granted,
extremist like some Hindus who take their lives knowing they'll return
is wrong. Fear of death evokes our egocentricity more than acceptance
of the soul. Anyway, help me see what you mean.
> It is my belief that we didn't have a choice in the matter of being
> here
> but now that we are it is our responsiblity to care for this fragile
> blue
> planet and the other life forms which depend on our good judgement.
> Our
> children and grandchildren and theirs, and theirs will be profoundly
> affected by the decisions that we make during our tenure. I don't mean
> for
> this to sound grim because I think that it is exhilarating for us to
> contemplate this process in which we are embedded. The contemplation
> of the
> operation of the Universe as we understand it today is a source of
> wonder
> and awe to me and I believe that if everyone understood that story we
> would
> be living in a Garden of Eden.
>
Agree. Jesus said we can have Heaven on Earth, it's within our reach.
> I have no objection to a God as long as He
> does not interfere with that process, but I also have no fear or
> regret at
> the thought that I will be returning to contribute my bit to
> sustaining
> Gaia.
>
God interfere? He's the source and substance of you and I and Gaia. By
the way, here you say you will be returning. Perhaps your point above
is that you do believe in a soul?
> If you have time read the last couple of pages of the article that I
> posted on the forum, I think that will explain my position better than
> I
> can here at the moment. At 72 my mind is not as agile as it once was.
> Let
> me say for those of you who are still young enough to be immortal that
> for
> me it has gotten even better as I get older. Don't be discouraged, it
> gets
> better all the time.
>
Let me say that it means a lot to hear that, thank you.
M.
> --
> post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
>
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:14 CEST